Homosexuality’s rapid rise from
unmentionable vice to celebrated minority status is part of a campaign to
subvert Judeo-Christian culture.

We [homosexual activists] have gone
underground and we have people in every one of the Religious Right’s
organizations. We’re on their mailing lists. We’re reading everything
they’re putting out. We think the words from their mouths trickle down
into violence. And when our evidence reaches a critical mass, we’re
going to use the best attorneys in this country to bring a class action
suit in 50 states to have it stopped.

— Homosexual activist Mel
WhiteLarry King
Live, August 13,
1993

Recommend this
article to a friend.

Friend's Name:

Friend's E-Mail:

Your Name:

Your E-Mail:

Comments:

Names and email addresses are not
harvested from this feature. We respect your privacy and as
such you will not be added to an email
list.

Is it possible that someday it may be a crime
to oppose homosexuality? Could the Holy Bible eventually be
designated "hate literature," and preachers be accused of "hate crimes"
for condemning the practice from their pulpits? Will parents be forbidden
to teach their children to abhor homosexuality? This all seems improbable,
or even impossible — but as the case of Rolf Szabo illustrates, the
homosexual movement now has the power to punish those unwilling to
"celebrate" that lifestyle.

Prior to his firing in October, Rolf Szabo had
worked for Eastman Kodak for 23 years. By all accounts Szabo, a resident
of Greece, New York, was a capable and conscientious employee. But Szabo
discovered that under the new workplace dogma of "diversity," job
performance is less important than displaying correct
attitudes.

In early October, according to Rochester ABC
television affiliate WOKR, "Kodak’s diversity group sent out an e-mail
asking employees to ‘be supportive’ of colleagues who choose to come out
on Gay and Lesbian Coming-Out Day." Replying to the message, Szabo tersely
told Kodak’s sensitivity commissars to stop sending him e-mails that he
considered "disgusting and offensive." "I don’t need this to do my job,"
Szabo explained. "It has nothing to do with gay [issues]. It could have
been any other topic. It’s just that enough is enough. We really don’t
need this to do our jobs."

According to Szabo, Kodak officials demanded
that he sign a letter renouncing his "homophobic" attitudes. When he
refused he was fired. "The Eastman Kodak Company gives me a paycheck; they
don’t own me," Szabo told WOKR. "I’ll go somewhere else for a paycheck,
that’s all."

While extreme, Szabo’s experience is not
unique. "Diversity groups" like Kodak’s are now a standard feature for
many major corporations. Corporate workshops and seminars intended to
encourage "sensitivity" regarding homosexuality are becoming commonplace,
and those who climb the corporate ladder frequently find that advancement
depends as much on their supposedly progressive attitudes as it does on
their education, abilities, and performance.

"Gay-friendly" policies are in place in
hundreds of major corporations. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the
country’s largest and most influential homosexual lobby, compiles a
"Corporate Equality Index," rating 319 companies (including 208 in the
Fortune 500) on their workplace policies toward homosexuals. Nearly 70
percent of the companies surveyed provide "domestic partner" benefits for
homosexual "couples." And 293 of those companies "have nondiscrimination
policies that include sexual orientation," reported the October 29th issue
of The Advocate.

The Gay Financial Network (GFN) compiles a
similar list called the GFN 50, "a comprehensive list of the most powerful
and gay-friendly publicly traded companies." To qualify for that list,
"Each company had to have a policy in place stating that it does not
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," provides benefits to
"same-sex domestic partners," and has suitable policies regarding
"diversity training" and "a ban on any negative stereotypes based on
sexual orientation...." Financial services giant American Express (which
mandates employee "diversity training") sits atop the GFN 50, with such
corporate heavyweights as Walt Disney Co., Microsoft, Xerox, IBM,
Hewlett-Packard, and Citigroup also ranking in the top 10.

"I think the main issue lies in a corporate
organization trying to force people to believe certain things with
mandatory-type seminars and workshops," commented a Motorola employee in
an August wire service interview. Speaking anonymously, the individual
criticized the global electronics firm for imposing a series of mandatory
"Homophobia in the Workplace" workshops. An employee at the Palo Alto
headquarters of the Hewlett-Packard computer firm told THE NEW AMERICAN that the
corporation similarly emphasizes "promoting inclusion." The individual
cited a recent corporate newsletter that warned: "Any comments or conduct
relating to a person’s race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual
orientation, or ethnic background that fail to respect the dignity and
feeling of the individual are unacceptable." (Emphasis added.)

"Diversity training is becoming mandatory
catechism class for the church of the politically correct," notes Attorney
Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund. In post-modern America, it’s
not enough merely to tolerate homosexuality and similar perversions; these
destructive vices must be embraced in the name of "celebrating diversity."
As Rolf Szabo can testify, "non-discrimination" policies intended to make
workplaces "gay-friendly" can lead to unemployment for non-conformists — a
sobering consideration for professionals trying to find traction in tough
economic times. Many Americans who espouse traditional moral views
disapprove of homosexuality but prefer a "live and let live" approach. But
Szabo’s case offers just one of numerous illustrations that partisans of
the homosexual revolution aren’t willing to respect that proposed
cease-fire in the culture war.

Trotsky famously remarked: "You may not be
interested in war, but war is interested in you." Similarly, it could be
said that while you might not be interested in the Lavender Revolution,
the Revolution is interested in you — and your children.

Targeting the Youth

Homosexual change agents in the corporate world
insist that the battle against workplace "discrimination" must include
indoctrinating straight employees regarding the evils of "homophobia." In
government-run schools across the nation, even more aggressive efforts to
indoctrinate schoolchildren are carried out in the name of preventing
classroom "harassment" and combating youth suicide.

This strategy was pioneered in Massachusetts by
the Boston-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network (GLSEN).
According to GLSEN’s Kevin Jennings, homosexual activists "seized upon the
opponent’s calling card — safety — and explained how homophobia represents
a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence,
name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common." Jennings and
subversives of his ilk insist that "gay" teens account for up to one-third
of all teen suicides, often driven to self-destruction by feelings of
rejection and loneliness. While it’s true that serious behavioral
disorders like homosexuality can breed suicidal tendencies, the oft-cited
truism linking teen suicide to "homophobia" is entirely bogus.

In January 1989, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) published a four-volume report dealing with teen
suicide. Attached to the report’s findings was a brief polemical essay
entitled "Gay Male and Lesbian Suicide," written by Paul Gibson, an
obscure San Francisco social worker. Gibson blamed the traditional family
and conventional religion for the problems experienced by suicidal
homosexual youth. He described religion as a "risk factor in gay youth
suicide because of the depiction of homosexuality as a sin and the
reliance of families on the church for understanding homosexuality."
Gibson’s essay specifically targeted "traditional (e.g., Catholic) and
fundamentalist (e.g., Evangelical) faiths [which] still portray
homosexuality as morally wrong or evil."

The HHS included Gibson’s essay despite a lack
of documentary evidence to support its astonishing claims. This lent the
federal government’s prestige — such as it is — to the homosexual lobby’s
contention that traditional family life and orthodox religion are enemies
of the public good, since they supposedly contribute to the risk of teen
suicide.

This spurious linkage inspired a February 1993
report from the Massachusetts governor’s office entitled Making Schools
Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth: Breaking the Silence in Schools and
Families. It required that "all certified teachers and educators will
receive training in issues relevant to the needs and problems faced by gay
and lesbian youth. Such training should be a requirement for teacher
certification and school accreditation." Two years later, GLSEN appeared
on the scene with a program to "educate" parents and communities about
homosexuality, using teen suicide as a wedge issue. "In Massachusetts, no
one could speak up against our frame and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think
students should kill themselves’; this allowed us to set the terms for the
debate," observes Jennings. This strategy "automatically threw our
opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of
attack."

Consequently, many Massachusetts public school
students are subjected to homosexual indoctrination, often involving
shockingly explicit discussion of depraved sexual practices. And the
objective is to begin indoctrinating children at the earliest possible
age.

Having worked with the Massachusetts Governor’s
Advisory Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, Karen Harbeck insists "by
seventh grade it’s too late. People say this is an issue mainly for high
school sex education class. They’re wrong; it belongs in
pre-school."

High school students in Kensington,
Massachusetts, were assigned to read a textbook claiming that sexual
activities may be "less threatening in the early teens with people of your
own sex" and that "growing up means rejecting the values of your parents."
Students in a middle school in Ashland, Massachusetts, were assigned "gay"
parts in a role-playing exercise about "discrimination." Two boys were
compelled to act the role of a homosexual "couple" seeking to adopt a
child; one of them was forced to utter the line, "It’s natural to be
attracted to the same sex."

A March 25, 2000 homosexual "Teach Out" at
Tufts University for educators and teenage students (staged with state
government support) promoted pederasty (adult-child sexual relations),
endorsed homosexual teenage sex, and explicitly described homosexual and
sado-masochistic practices. One workshop, presented by three "gay"
officials of the Massachusetts state government, was entitled "What They
Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A
Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21." With 20 young people present in the
audience, the state employees graphically described sexual practices that
cannot be mentioned by name in a family publication.

Another session entitled "Struggles &
Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum"
endorsed adult-child sexual relations. A videotape presented in that class
featured a seventh-grade girl narrator claiming that the ancient Greeks
"encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an
adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover." The workshop
presenter, Christine L. Hoyle, then informed the assembled students and
teachers that it was acceptable for an older man to approach adolescents
for sex.

The Lavender Lobby promotes the worldview that
it is proper for adult "lovers" to teach children about sex, and for
children to tutor their backward parents about "tolerance." Mike Chiusano
of Beverly, Massachusetts, unexpectedly found himself on the receiving end
of such instruction in 1994 when his 13-year-old daughter denounced him as
a "homophobe." "Our family was sitting around the dinner table, and quite
without guile or any particular intention, my daughter … told my wife and
me about mandatory assemblies she had attended, without request for my
permission, as part of ‘Homophobia Week’ activities," recalls
Chiusano.

Once again, Mr. Chiusano’s experience is hardly
unusual, since the supposed need to protect children from the influence of
"homophobic" parents is a recurring theme for Lavender Revolution foot
soldiers. "I think that the reality is that most of the parents themselves
have tremendous prejudice and bigotry that have been passed on for
generations," declared former New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick,
who promoted classroom use of the sodomist tracts Heather Has Two
Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate. "The reality is that we as a
society, if we are to remain free and just, must provide a counter-balance
to what kids are obviously learning at home." A first-grade teacher from
Wisconsin made a similar point in a homosexual propaganda video entitled
It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School. Arguing for
mandatorily indoctrinating grade school students, the teacher argued: "If
parents are allowed to have their children opt out of gay and lesbian
units [classes], what will happen when we teach about Dutch culture or
African-American history? It scares me."

Permeating Popular Culture

Unless they are determined to withdraw from
public life, Americans simply cannot avoid the subject of homosexuality
and its offshoots. Lavender Revolution propaganda has literally saturated
our nation’s popular culture.

Scores of recent major films depict homosexuals
as veritable saints, exploiting the mainstream appeal of unambiguously
masculine leading men by casting them in homosexual roles. Dennis Quaid,
who earned the gratitude and respect of mainstream audiences in early 2002
for his role in The Rookie, offers a useful example. The
Rookie was an unabashedly pro-family, pro-Christian film based on the
true story of a middle-aged schoolteacher and baseball coach who made it
to the big leagues. In two other recent films — Frequency and a
remake of The Parent Trap — Quaid convincingly played admirable
characters devoted to family. However, this winter, on the heels of these
crowd-pleasing offerings, Quaid stars in Far From Heaven, playing
"a 1950s suburban husband tormented by his inability to control his
homosexual longings," in the words of the homosexually themed
Advocate magazine.

Similarly, the 1994 homosexual agitprop film
Philadelphia cast Tom Hanks — an actor whose immense box office
appeal was built around his everyman screen persona — as a mild-mannered
homosexual dying from AIDS. Tom Selleck, who played macho Vietnam
vet-turned-Private Investigator Thomas Magnum on television for eight
seasons, played a homosexual reporter in the 1998 film In &
Out, a role that called for him to kiss actor Kevin Kline on-screen.
Since 1987, British Shakespearean Patrick Stewart has lent his resonant
baritone and regal bearing to Star Trek’s heroic Captain Jean-Luc
Picard — with a brief detour as a flamboyantly "gay" interior designer in
the 1995 AIDS "message film" Jeffrey. James Gandolfini took a brief
sabbatical from playing a tough, womanizing mafia don on HBO’s The
Sopranos to play a macho homosexual hit man in the Julia Roberts/Brad
Pitt romantic comedy The Mexican.

Why would such roles in often
less-than-successful films attract such bankable stars? "Hollywood has a
way of whipping people into line, of making them ‘team players’ and
conform to a politically correct message," observes Dr. Ted Baehr of the
Christian Film and Television Commission. Dr. Baehr told THE NEW AMERICAN that "there is great pressure brought to bear [in
Hollywood] on some actors and creative people who are well-intentioned,
church-going people who are made to believe that embracing ‘diversity’
regarding homosexuality is the key to winning the respect of the industry,
and a way to make the world a better place. And the power brokers have
ways of torturing people — through professional and personal ostracism, or
other retaliation — to bring them to heel."

Even as it recruits bankable leading men to
portray homosexuals on-screen, Hollywood has been packaging homosexual
characters as ideal men. In the immensely popular My Best Friend’s
Wedding, Julia Roberts played a jilted woman who found consolation in
a platonic relationship with a homosexual friend played by openly "gay"
British actor Rupert Everett. That film introduced a propaganda theme that
was taken up by the Emmy-winning television sitcom Will &
Grace, built around a loving platonic relationship between a single
woman and a homosexual man.

It is difficult to overstate the impact of the
Lavender Revolution’s conquest of prime-time television. The year 1995
marked a watershed in that campaign, according to the Orange County
Register. That "was the year that Gay Came to Stay on prime-time TV,"
noted the newspaper. "Suddenly, gayness was cool. Although gay characters
still weren’t allowed to connect physically in prime time, homosexuality
became a topic open for discussion on series old and new. And characters
of all sexual persuasions pattered about it...." Seven years later, "you
can scarcely find a TV show without a sympathetic lesbian or gay
character," ecstatically observed lesbian activist E.J. Graff in the
October 21st issue of American Prospect.

The viewing public has also embraced homosexual
characters who are somewhat less than sympathetic. In 2000, tens of
millions of American television viewers tuned in to learn the winner of
the first installment of Survivor, a "lifeboat
exercise"* disguised as a game show.

The contestant who claimed the $1,000,000 prize
was Richard Hatch, an openly homosexual "corporate trainer" who prevailed
over his rivals through psychological manipulation — an object lesson
tragically ignored by the show’s vast audience. According to several news
accounts, the victorious Hatch received an avalanche of marriage proposals
from both male and female viewers.

Psychological Warfare

Richard Hatch’s Survivor triumph is
uncannily representative of the Lavender Revolution’s cultural advance,
which is also the result of sophisticated psychological manipulation — so
sophisticated that most Americans have little concept of the scope and
rapidity with which the unmentionable vice has gone mainstream.

"Between 1987 and 1993 — the dates of two
exhilarating and massive gay-rights marches on Washington — lesbian and
gay issues were dragged out of the Ann Landers and home décor columns and
onto the front and editorial pages, where they have remained," writes E.J.
Graff in her American Prospect essay. "Perhaps the most important
is the change in lesbians’ and gay men’s daily lives: Mentioning a
same-sex partner in ordinary conversation — to co-workers, doctors,
nurses, teachers, contractors, strangers on a plane — no longer feels
death-defying...."

Although Graff makes no mention of a book
entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred
of Gays in the ’90s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, her essay
serves as a postcript to that "Gay Revolution" manifesto. Nearly a decade
ago (see "The Lavender
Revolution" in our January 24, 1994 issue), THE
NEW
AMERICAN
described the campaign laid out in that book, designed to use the mass
media to condition the public to accept and support the homosexual
cultural revolution.

In their revolutionary blueprint, Kirk and
Madsen outline a carefully calibrated campaign to "convert" society in a
fashion congenial to homosexuality. "By conversion … we mean conversion of
the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned
psychological attack," they write. "We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of
prejudice to our own ends — using the very process that made America hate
us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or
not."

The first stage of the process outlined by Kirk
and Madsen is to make the subject of homosexuality ubiquitous. "At least
at the outset [of the campaign], we seek desensitization and nothing
more," they write. "You can forget about trying right up front to persuade
folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think
it is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders
— then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won." One key
objective was simply to make the previously unmentionable subject
unavoidable: "The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is
commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a
neutral or supportive way."

Once this is achieved, continue Kirk and
Madsen, it would be necessary to "portray gays as victims, not as
aggressive challengers.... Gays must be cast as victims in need of
protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role
of protector." Graff aptly illustrates that tactic by describing the
saturation coverage provided to the death of homosexual activist Matthew
Shepard in Wyoming, dishonestly portrayed as an anti-homosexual "hate
crime." (It was actually a brutal robbery-murder that had no demonstrated
connection to Shepard’s lifestyle.) Because of the media’s focus on the
Shepard murder and other supposed "hate crimes," explains Kevin Cathcart
of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, "The definition of what
shocks the conscience has changed" — meaning that it is now opposition to
homosexuality, rather than the vice itself, that is supposedly considered
shocking.

Shepard has practically become an icon. During
the 2002 Miss America Pageant, Miss Nevada, Teresa Benitez, recited a
letter written by Shepard’s father and read by him in court to one of his
son’s murderers. And "conservative" Oregon Republican Senator Gordon H.
Smith featured Shepard and his mother Judy in television ads during his
reelection campaign. "My son Matthew was viciously murdered simply because
he was gay," intones Mrs. Shepard. "Gordon Smith stands with me in the
fight against hate. Matthew would have liked Gordon a lot."

That a "conservative" Republican would
conscript the ghost of a homosexual activist as a character reference
tellingly illustrates where we are as a society.

The Next Phase

Drawing on the Kirk/Madsen battle plan, once
the public has been properly "desensitized," "conditioned," and
"converted," attention must be turned on individuals and institutions that
simply won’t conform to the program. At this point, notes After the
Ball, "it will be time to get tough. To be blunt, [traditionalists]
must be vilified.... The public should be shown images of ranting
homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America.
These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned
alive or [tortured]; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical
hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged...."

The hate-saturated caricatures thus described
are difficult to avoid in movies, television, and in what is offered by
that branch of the entertainment media that calls itself the "news." The
product of this pervasive indoctrination is evident in Rolf Szabo’s case,
and in the way some schoolchildren feel obligated to denigrate their
parents as homophobes.

And the revolution, according to Graff, has
just begun. While much "progress" has been made, she contends, "it’s not
yet time for the forces of justice to abandon the field; the gay and
lesbian cultural victory is still pretty limited." Homosexuals have yet to
conquer such institutions as the military, the Boy Scouts, and marriage —
but she’s hopeful that homosexuals, "with enough help from our progressive
friends," will ultimately prevail on those battlegrounds as
well.

The "progressive friends" Graff alludes to are
deployed as change agents throughout our society, conducting a long march
through our institutions. Following a blueprint laid down by Italian
Communist theorist Antonio Gramsci, these subversives are seeking to
capture the culture, thereby eradicating all institutional impediments for
creating the Total State. Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist
journal Dissent, Michael Walzer took stock of the Gramscian
revolution’s progress. Among the victories won by cultural Marxists in the
"Gramscian war of position," is "the transformation of family life,"
particularly "the emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention
paid to it in the media."

The homosexual revolution seeks to destroy,
through lethal redefinition, the central institution of a free society —
the divinely ordained family. This is why the Gramscian change agents have
made the Lavender Revolution a priority — and why that revolution’s
designs must be actively opposed.

* Used in classroom
settings as a form of psychological conditioning, "lifeboat exercises"
typically place participants in a disaster scenario in which their
survival depends on consigning others to death.